Kapil Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akarsh Asthana holding brief of Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0692/2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow.

3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is neither the Director, nor proprietor or partner in the Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and he is not the beneficiary at any level. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the co-accused Asif Naseem has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated

13.08.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6048 of 2025. The order dated 13.08.2025 is extracted herein under :- "1. Heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma, Sri Harsh Singh and Sri Pratik Raj, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0692 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R., stating that the informant had made investments in M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, he came to know through newspaper that the Company had duped the investors. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was the Managing Director of the Company, M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., in which, investments were made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 but even the charges 2 BAIL No. 12338 of 2025 (PMLA) and have not been framed against him even after the expiry of a period of more than three and half years. It has further been stated in the affidavit that as per the knowledge of the deponent, the applicant is involved in about 528 cases through out the State of U.P., all of which are similar in nature. The applicant has already been granted bail in 60 cases. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant has duped thousands of persons and the offence committed by him is serious in nature which does not justify his release on bail, but the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even charges have not been framed till date. A large bunch of bail applications have been connected and listed together and the State has filed a counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4191 of 2025. 6. Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- The Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow has stated that the present case does not relate to offences under the Prevention of the Directorate of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Enforcement, is a proforma party. However, he has informed the Court that the Directorate of Enforcement has seized a large amount of proceeds of crime and is in the process of distribution of the proceeds amongst the victims of offences. 7. In reply to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining distribution of assets of the Company by the Enforcement Directorate. 8. The Purpose of keeping an accused in custody during trial is to enure his availability to face the trial. When the trial has not commenced in spite of expiry of a period of more than three and half years years since the applicant was taken in custody, it appears that the purpose of keeping the applicant in custody is not being achieved by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant does not appeared to be serving the ends of justice. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R alleges non return of a money invested in a Company; it appears that no civil proceedings for recovery of the money has been instituted by the informant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even the charges have not been framed till date, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant-Asif Naseem be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court."

4. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant who is having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 28.08.2025 is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. In case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence and will co-operate in early conclusion of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel. 3 BAIL No. 12338 of 2025

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, the ground of parity and without going into the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Kapil Kumar Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member or near relative, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

9. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. December 9, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akarsh Asthana holding brief of Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0692/2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow.

3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is neither the Director, nor proprietor or partner in the Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and he is not the beneficiary at any level. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the co-accused Asif Naseem has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated

13.08.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6048 of 2025. The order dated 13.08.2025 is extracted herein under :- "1. Heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma, Sri Harsh Singh and Sri Pratik Raj, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0692 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R., stating that the informant had made investments in M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, he came to know through newspaper that the Company had duped the investors. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was the Managing Director of the Company, M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., in which, investments were made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 but even the charges 2 BAIL No. 12338 of 2025 (PMLA) and have not been framed against him even after the expiry of a period of more than three and half years. It has further been stated in the affidavit that as per the knowledge of the deponent, the applicant is involved in about 528 cases through out the State of U.P., all of which are similar in nature. The applicant has already been granted bail in 60 cases. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant has duped thousands of persons and the offence committed by him is serious in nature which does not justify his release on bail, but the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even charges have not been framed till date. A large bunch of bail applications have been connected and listed together and the State has filed a counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4191 of 2025. 6. Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- The Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow has stated that the present case does not relate to offences under the Prevention of the Directorate of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Enforcement, is a proforma party. However, he has informed the Court that the Directorate of Enforcement has seized a large amount of proceeds of crime and is in the process of distribution of the proceeds amongst the victims of offences. 7. In reply to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining distribution of assets of the Company by the Enforcement Directorate. 8. The Purpose of keeping an accused in custody during trial is to enure his availability to face the trial. When the trial has not commenced in spite of expiry of a period of more than three and half years years since the applicant was taken in custody, it appears that the purpose of keeping the applicant in custody is not being achieved by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant does not appeared to be serving the ends of justice. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R alleges non return of a money invested in a Company; it appears that no civil proceedings for recovery of the money has been instituted by the informant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even the charges have not been framed till date, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant-Asif Naseem be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court."

4. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant who is having no criminal history is languishing in jail since 28.08.2025 is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. In case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence and will co-operate in early conclusion of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel. 3 BAIL No. 12338 of 2025

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, the ground of parity and without going into the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Kapil Kumar Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member or near relative, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

8. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

9. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. December 9, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench